Category Archives: China-U.S.

A President At Court

Donald Trump seen in Washington, November 2011. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore. Licenced under Creative Commons

IT IS THE time US President Donald Trump spends in Beijing that will be the most critical part of his more-than-weeklong tour of five Asian countries that he started this weekend.

To the other four countries on his itinerary — Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines — he will offer some measure of assurance that the United States’ traditional security guarantees to the region can be squared with his ‘America First’ economic nationalism.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP), a cornerstone of his predecessor Barack Obama’s ‘Asian pivot’, has been deeply felt with some concern across the region. Nowhere less so than in Japan, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had invested considerable political capital in TPP and must now still assume the role of the principal regional counterweight to China.

The Trump administration is increasingly referring to the region as the Indo-Pacific, not Asia-Pacific, to diminish the Asia part, which to most Americans implies Chinese. The two regions are not the same to a geologist or marine biologist,  but the co-option of the term by geopolitical strategists is blurring the distinction. However, it will take more than rebranding to assuage Asian allies’ anxieties.

In Beijing, the mood will be very different. Trump will be pampered and feted at the court of ‘the King of China’, to use Trump’s phrase. The US businessmen accompanying the US president will sign multi-billion dollar sales deals that will help to diminish China’s trade surplus with the United States, but in designated sectors, notably energy, of Beijing’s not the free-market’s choosing.

Discussions about North Korea have potential to be contentious, but Trump may well find himself an uncharacteristically restrained guest as Xi holds to China’s ‘dual approach’ line and stresses the need to get all parties back to the negotiating table.

Most of all Beijing will project the visit of a meeting of two superpowers, who will jointly “map out a blueprint for the development of bilateral ties in a new era”, as Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zequang puts it. China-America First, perhaps, but every photo opportunity will be carefully used to convey which of the two leaders is the great draftsman.

It is a formula that worked well for China when Xi visited Washington in January. On these trips, the optics are as, if not more important than the outcomes.

As soon as Trump has departed Beijing, Xi will head to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Danang in Vietnam. Trump, too, will be there, and the allies and adversaries on both sides will make their judgements about which of the two superpowers will figure most prominently in their lives.

1 Comment

Filed under China-U.S.

North Korea’s Double Dilemma For China

IT IS GETTING ugly on the Korean peninsula, and it was not looking all that pretty to begin with.

However exactly powerful a nuclear bomb North Korea tested over the weekend and whatever the white metallic thing was that the country’s leader Kim Jong-un was photographed posing with — and standing far too close to if it was truly a missile nose cone fitting nuclear device —  it is clear that it is too late to stop Pyongyang ‘nuclearising’.

That poses a what-to-do dilemma for US President Donald Trump, who had said that he would not let Pyongyang get this far with its missile programme. It poses an even bigger one for China, which the Western powers, at least, are blaming for not being tough enough on its ally, while from Beijing’s point of view, it is being asked to take all the risk of dealing with Pyongyang while the United States would get most of the benefit.

As this Bystander has noted before, Washington may overestimate Beijing’s sway over Pyongyang. This weekend’s nuclear test marked the third occasion on which North Korea had upstaged President Xi Jinping at a moment when he wanted to project a particular, and strong face of China to the world.

This weekend was meant to be about Xi presenting the BRICS, with China in the vanguard, as the progressive alternative to an increasingly protectionist West. He will not have appreciated Kim hogging the limelight. That Kim feels confident enough to do that to his only ally, again, implies that North Korea is no dutiful vassal state.

That is not to say that Beijing can do nothing more. It can. It remains North Korea’s primary source of oil and could choke that off, just as it has cut off other trade. It has so far resisted the United States’ pressure to impose such a sanction. It fears that doing so could cause a collapse of the regime that would send millions of refugees flooding across the border into northeastern China and, the far bigger concern, trigger a sudden regime collapse in North Korea that would leave US or US-allied troops hard against its border.

Beijing has in the past cut off oil supplies to North Korea on two occasions. Both times Pyongyang returned to the negotiating table in short order, if only for a while.

There are at least two reasons that Beijing will be reluctant to do so again. First, it does not want to be seen at home or abroad to be knuckling under US pressure. Trump has repeatedly lambasted Beijing for not doing more on sanctions (and when it did, then slapped sanctions on some Chinese companies and has subsequently threatened a trade boycott of any country that trades with North Korea, hardly the thank-you that would encourage further co-operation on this front).

Second, it still does not want to cause a sudden shock that would trigger an economic collapse in North Korea. Instead, it will take incremental back-door steps to cut back oil supplies.

There are signs of this already happening. State-owned China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) stopped shipping diesel and gasoline to North Korea in May and June. Ostensibly, this was a corporate decision made on the basis of uncertainty over getting paid. However, such as decision would not have been taken without the express consent of the Party committee within CNPC, and that consent, in turn, would not have been given without express consent and more likely direction from higher up.

Last year, China shipped more than 96,000 tonnes of gasoline and nearly 45,000 tonnes of diesel, worth a combined $64 million, to North Korea. Most of it came from CNPC, but this Bystander would hazard that more and more of China’s other energy companies will discover they have misgivings about trading with Pyongyang and slowly but steadily the oil supply will be choked off.

The statement from the foreign ministry condemning the weekend’s bomb test offers further signs of Beijing’s hardening position towards Pyongyang. While it still called for a resolution to the situation through dialogue, its language was far harsher towards North Korea than in the statements that had followed the five previous nuclear tests.

Denuclearising the peninsula is probably less of a concern for Beijing than Washington, though Beijing would be more than happy for North Korea not to have an independent nuclear deterrent, and especially if its absence bought a removal of the THAAD missile defence system from South Korea as well.

Its priority is to have as much stability on the peninsula as there can be. South Korea response to Pyongyang’s nuclear test (live-fire missile exercises), the planned deployment of a US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in near waters and a Seoul-Washington agreement in principle to increase the 500-kilogramme permissible payload on South Korea missiles will all destabilise the peninsula more than stabilise it, not to mention discomfort Beijing.

In this environment, Beijing has two sets of relationships to manage, one with Pyongyang and the other with Washington. Both have highly unpredictable players on the other side. Beijing’s preferred option is to work through the United Nations to mitigate the volatility and to put the United States on the track of recognising that North Korea’s nuclear ambitions can no longer be contained, only managed.

The UN Security Council met today, and its member countries will be working on a new set of tougher sanctions expected to be presented for a vote at the beginning of next week. There is still a gulf to bridge between the Chinese and US positions. Meanwhile, China will be applying its own economic squeeze on North Korea to get Kim back to any sort of negotiating table before he provokes the United States into taking actions that will trigger the regime chaos that Beijing so fears.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., China-Koreas

US Imposes More North Korea Sanctions On Chinese Firms

THE UNITED STATES has given another turn to the financial-sanctions screw it is driving into North Korea. The US Treasury has added six Chinese and Russian individuals and ten organisations with financial ties to Pyongyang’s weapons program to its list of entities banned from conducting business with U.S.-linked companies and individuals.

Most notable among the latest additions is Mingzheng International Trading Ltd, which Washington considers a front company for North Korea’s state-run Foreign Trade Bank, which itself has been subject to American sanctions since 2013. In June, the US Department of Justice filed suit against Mingzheng for laundering money on behalf of blacklisted North Korean entities, seeking to seize $1.9 million of the firm’s funds.

These latest sanctions appear to target coal importers and agencies supplying North Korean labour to foreign countries in its continuing attempt to sever Pyongyang’s supply lines of hard currency needed to fund its nuclear and missile programmes. In the same vein, the US had sanctioned Bank of Dandong, bank, along with Dalian Global Unity Shipping and two Chinese citizens, Sun Wei and Li Hong Ri, in June.

The United States charged that “at least 17%” of the $786m in customer transactions conducted through Bank of Dandong’s  US correspondent accounts from May 2012 to May 2015 involved “companies that have transacted with, or on behalf of, US and UN-sanctioned North Korean entities”.

The bank which is mainly owned by municipal agencies, is small in the order of banks; its assets were only $10.7 billion as of the end of 2016. A bond issuance prospectus last year revealed that the bank a 1% stake in Dandong Xinliu Group, a state-owned company engaged in trade with North Korea.

Unlike the UN sanctions recently announced, which required lengthy negotiations with Beijing, this latest round appears to have been imposed unilaterally by the United States, as evidenced by China’s reaction which was to say the Washington should “immediately correct its mistake”.

For his part, Kim Jong-un has ordered a step-up in the production of warheads and solid-fuel rocket engines for long-range ballistic missiles, taking some of the wind out of the sails of United States officials who have started to suggest that the possibility of a resumption of talks on a negotiated settlement might be appearing on the horizon.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized, China-U.S., China-Koreas

China Walks The Line On North Korea

THE LIKELY PRICE of China’s support for the tough new sanctions on trade and investment that the United Nations has voted to impose on North Korea is that they do not include oil. That will mitigate the risk of economic collapse in North Korea that Beijing so fears will trigger a tidal wave of refugees into its north-east provinces and the breakdown of internal order in the northern half of the peninsular that could leave US or US-allied troops hard against its border.

Beijing is having to play a difficult game in keeping the Trump administration in Washington from reverting to unilateral military action to stop Pyongyang’s nuclear programme, with all the uncertain consequences that might bring. Our man at the UN sends word that Russia, presumably with China’s support, tried but failed to get the United States to avow military action.

At the same time, Beijing’s erstwhile ally in Pyongyang continues to see the benefits of being a nuclear-armed regime as far outweighing any economic pain it has to endure to get there. Regime survival rather than national well-being is its underlying priority.

In the end, as this Bystander has previously suggested, the rest of the world may have to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea and bring it into the arrangements the nuclear powers use to ensure such weapons are not deployed but remain deterrents.

However, Pyongyang still has a way to go in its nuclear arsenal before it can feels secure with deterrence. It may have an intercontinental ballistic missile that it can lob on the United States, but not yet the capability for that missile to deliver a targeted nuclear strike.

The United States is determined that Pyongyang’s nuclear programme be rolled back, so it does not reach that point. That does not seem something that Pyongyang will accept, as its still inflammatory rhetoric implies. Threats of engulfing the US in “an unimaginable sea of fire” will do little to mollify US President Donald Trump.

China has called on Pyongyang to halt its tests (in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-South Korean military drills), in a bid to lower the temperature and get the six-party talks going again. Much of the being-the-scenes activity at the ASEAN meeting now underway in Manila and where all the actors including North Korea will be present, will be to that end.

Footnote: The latest UN sanctions ban North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. In November, the Security Council capped the North’s coal exports at $400 million annually. China, the largest buyer, suspended imports in February.

Reuters news agency quotes a U.N. diplomat as saying that the expected value of North Korea’s exports of iron and iron ore in 2017 was $251 million, with $113 million coming from lead and lead ore, and $295 million from seafood.

The latest available full year figures from trade data, for 2015, show North Korea’s exports of minerals and metals at $1.4 billion, accounting for 49.9% of exports. Seafood exports totalled $115 million.

The new sanctions also prohibit countries from hiring additional North Korean labourers working abroad, bans new joint ventures with North Korea and any new investment in current joint ventures.

In 2015, a UN human rights investigator estimated that Pyongyang had sent more than 50,000 people to work abroad, mainly in Russia and China, earning between $1.2 billion and $2.3 billion a year for the government.

Enforcement of the sanctions falls heavily on China, which buys 83% of North Korea’s exports.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., China-Koreas

Djibouti Bound

Chinese warships leaving Zhanjiang, Guangdong province, China on July 11, 2017 bound for China’s first overseas military base in Djibouti. Photo credit: Xinhua/Wu Dengfeng.

CHINESE MILITARY PERSONNEL are now en route for Djibouti where they will garrison China’s first overseas military base, which it started building last year at a cost of $590 million.

The photo above shows the departure from Zhanjiang in Guangdong province of the South Sea Fleet’s Jinggang Shan, a Yuzhao class Type 071 amphibious transport dock that had previously been deployed in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370,  along with a second PLA-Navy ship, China’s sole semi-submersible Donghai Island class naval auxiliary ship.

The Horn of Africa country, only half as big again as municipal Beijing, is already home to US, French and Japanese military bases with a Saudi Arabian one, like China’s, under construction.

China’s base will be used for supporting peacekeeping (Beijing has deployed its first UN peacekeeping combat troops in South Sudan), international anti-piracy operations off the Somali coast and in the Gulf of Aden (in which China has taken part since 2008) and humanitarian aid.

It will also provide advanced support, should it be needed, for the more than 250,000 Chinese now working in Africa — and the Chinese investments where they work. Evacuations of nationals have already been needed in Libya and Yemen.

China stresses that Djibouti will be a logistics or support, not military base. The question is, however it is described, whether it is the first of one, several or many such overseas beachheads.

The US defence department’s recent annual report to the US Congress on China’s military prowess took this definitive view:

As China’s global footprint and international interests have gown, its military modernization program and become more focused on supporting missions beyond China’s periphery, including power projection, sea land security, counterpiracy, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR). In February 2016, China began constitution of a military base in Djibouti that could be complete within the next year. China likely will seek to establish additional military based in countries with which it has long-standing, friendly relationships.

The US defence department pinpoints Pakistan as best fitting that bill. Given the growing economic interests at stake in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which runs through both some insecure but strategically important territory, and China’s extensive role in building a deep-water port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea coast, that seems a logical deduction.

However, many other countries will not be receptive to the notion of hosting PLA bases, and Chinese military doctrine sees prowess in cyber, space and information warfare as more potent than building a traditional network of military allies.

Indeed, current doctrine sees power projection assets as a vulnerability in modern warfare. That alone will be cause for China to move cautiously on establishing further bases.

At the same time, Beijing will use China’s economic linkages to cement support among those with similar security interests and to deter adversary power projection in third countries, particularly that by the United States.

For now, gaining access to foreign commercial ports for as a logistics base and for pre-positioning of support of “far seas” deployments by the PLA-Navy is likely to be the order of the day. That, anyway, is what would be needed for the HA/DR operations that Beijing is likely to concentrate on while its military learns to find its way around the world.

1 Comment

Filed under China-Africa, China-Pakistan, China-U.S., Defence, Uncategorized

Trump Hands Beijing Clear Skies For Global Climate Leadership

Air pollution at sunset, Shanghai, China, 2008

THE UNITED STATES’ withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, newly announced by US President Donald Trump, formally opens space for Chinese and European leadership on the issue that has been expanding ever since candidate Trump denounced climate change as a Chinese hoax designed to weaken US industry.

Having committed on the campaign trail to withdrawing the United States from the deal within 100 days of taking office, Trump now says he will make good on that promise and seek renegotiation of the accord on terms that are not as “draconian” for the United States.

The United States accounts for more than 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, a share exceeded only by China. Its withdrawal from an agreement that depends on the largest polluters making some of the deepest cuts to emissions inevitably weakens the accord’s chances of success.

During a trip to Germany, Prime Minister Li Keqiang reiterated ahead of Trump’s announcement Beijing’s commitment to the accord. China and the European Union are expected to issue a joint statement to bolster it  in the light of Trump’s abandonment (Update: they did). They are likely to reaffirm their joint commitment to cut back on fossil fuels, develop new green technologies and raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries cut their emissions.

Beijing’s position on climate change has swung through 180 degrees. Once considering international efforts to get it to limit carbon emissions to be an unwanted interference in its internal affairs, China has since become a strong proponent of efforts to halt global warming — and to develop global leadership in climate mitigation technologies.

Li will be familiar with the smog-choked skies above Beijing and a host of other cities (the picture above is of Shanghai). And also with the increasing popular unease at environmental degradation. He made a point of saying that the Paris accord was in China’s self-interest.  Certainly climate change constitutes not just a health challenge to authorities but also an economic and political threat to the Party.

However, it also offers Beijing a tremendous geopolitical opportunity. By not just rejecting the Paris accord but reneging on commitments, Trump hands China an opening to take on global leadership on what may well prove to be the defining issue of the century. Such an offer will not be refused.

Leave a comment

Filed under China-U.S., Environment